Representative
government fails when corrupt politicians mostly serve corporate and
other special interests. Then it is crucial for citizens to have direct
democracy opportunities. This means having the right to place initiatives
or referenda on ballots that can make new laws, amend constitutions,
recall elected officials, or control taxes and government spending.

Though
many local and 24 state governments provide rules for some ballot
measures and initiatives, they have been limited by diverse establishment,
status quo political interests on the left and right that feel threatened
by such populist citizen power.

I was impressed
by the recent Wall Street Journal article by John Fund: The Far Left’s
War on Direct Democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121702588516086143.html?
mod=todays_columnists). He made the point that direct democracy, though
sorely needed, has been successfully crushed by ugly tactics from
those interests that would rather use their money and influence to
control legislative and other government functions. They fear citizen
power. They know how to control elections and manipulate voters. “Unfortunately,
some special interests have declared war on the initiative process,
using tactics ranging from restrictive laws to outright thuggery,”
said Fund.

I agree
with Fund’s summation: “Representative government will
remain the enduring feature of American democracy, but the initiative
process is a valuable safety valve. …attempts to arbitrarily
curb the initiative, or to intimidate people from exercising their
right to participate, must be resisted. It's a civil liberties issue
that should unite people of good will on both the right and left.”

If this
sounds reasonable to you, then the appropriate question to ask of
presidential candidates is straightforward: Do you support providing
more direct democracy opportunities?

Indeed,
many people want some way of creating a federal ballot initiative
mechanism whereby the misdeeds or inaction of government could be
addressed by Americans voting directly to get the transparent and
accountable government and effective public policies they want. A
national ballot measure to end the Iraq war would have succeeded in
2006, for example. Putting Democrats in control of Congress did not
work. Do we need the ability to recall a president because of dishonesty,
incompetence and wrongheaded policies? Yes.

Also consider
that the two-party plutocracy has been able to stifle political opposition
by making third party and independent candidates unable to grasp any
real power, as they can do in most other democracies.

In thinking
about direct democracy I was reminded of the all too prevalent view
that Barack Obama will challenge the traditional, money dominated
two-party control of Washington politics. So, I pose this challenge
to Obama: If you truly represent a force for fixing a divisive and
ineffective political system, then why don’t you explicitly
come out in favor of creating more direct democracy opportunities?
Why not condemn all attempts to crush ballot measures and initiatives?
And why not help start a national discussion of the possibility of
a federal ballot initiative mechanism?

When over
80 percent of Americans see the nation on the wrong track it is fair
to conclude that representative government has failed. The two-party
plutocracy has too much power. This is the ideal time to recognize
the limits of electoral, representative democracy and become an advocate
for more direct democracy.

President
Theodore Roosevelt, in 1912, wisely observed "I believe in the
Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative
government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."
Direct democracy is all about converting the notion of sovereignty
of we the people into reality.

It comes
to this: Should we be content to put our faith in elected representative
or should we put it in ourselves? When you vote for candidates you
don’t put your faith in yourself, you put it in them. Haven’t
we been disappointed enough in those elected? We have less to fear
from the will of the majority than from the actions of dishonest,
corrupt and plutocracy-serving elected officials.

For political
reform seeking Americans the litmus test for presidential candidates
should be whether they support more direct democracy. If Obama is
not just about rhetorical change, but a true reformer of the political
system, then we need to hear from him on this issue.

Let him
explain whether or not he supports what Ralph Nader does, who has
said that presidential candidates should “put front and center
empowering the American people in direct democracy format so they
can move in when their so-called representatives cave in to the interests
of big business. …Campaign finance reform has got to go hand
in hand with direct democracy like initiative, referendum, recall.”
His current platform says that we need “more direct democracy
reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with ‘we
the people,’ and not ‘we the corporations.’”

Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.